To think this is a bad way to spend £1000 community care grant

[milliec]

Message withdrawn

"No, Elizabetth, you're absolutely correct, I couldn't. That is why I have contents insurance. It would never cross my mind that the state should replace my belongings."

If you were POOR and had three children to feed you might not be able to afford contents insurance, particularly if it's high because you live in a bad area to begin with.

Now this is what I call an abuse of taxpayers' money, much more so than a single mum with three kids who isn't that great at budgeting and has bought herself (shock, horror!) a sofa and some clothes for her and her children in order to replace things that were destroyed in fire that wiped out all their possessions -

link

And let's not talk about all the money the government forks out on 24 year old management consultants on £100k a year.

What I'd like to know is what is Milliec's department learning from this exercise.

On many insurance policies these days the payout is related to proof of replacement.

No way should £1,000 granted for replacing household furniture and clothing have been paid over until the projected spending was detailed in full and approved as being nmanageable. Unless a householder pays for "new for old" cover in their insurance policy they are usually only covered for the value of their used goods anyway so it is unreasonable to expect a grant to cover all new replacements unless you can source new stuff v v cheaply. If the claimants budget plan had shown that she needed £1,123, fine pay that amount but it is not unreasonable to pay out according to a priced up list of replacement goods and this would then nip any £599 sofa silliness in the bud before the money was handed over. If the claimant then didn't stick to her fully priced up agreed list she has broken the contract between her and the social welfare fund and would be prohibited from making further claims on the basis of making previous fraudulent claims. (She claimed for replacing all household effects and then spent most of the money on one item leaving her unable to buy many other things on her list).

I agree with the poster who said that if the claimant has never had this much money before and will likely never see such a large amount again, then just like a lottery winner, she needed help with dealing with the spending thereof. If Milliec's department cannot lobby for a change in the way the taxpayers money is distributed having experienced first hand the madness of the current system, who can be the watchdog ?

i have tried to give furniture away on a council-run initative. Donate goods going to the needy.

One wardrobe was clean and dry, just old fashioned and they said they couldn't take it!

Another was a small TV, no remote (pre-remotes really) and they wouldn't take that!

Even when your paying for them to take it away, even when it's clean and dry, and in full working order the council wouldn't take it... but we used it for years.

i've been poor (no washing machine, no TV, no fridge) and i can tell you i'm extremely grateful for every single piece of furniture in my house (most was given free or bought second-hand).

If I were poor and had three children, I wouldn't be turning my nose up at second-hand goods!

I'm not technically poor and I don't turn my nose up at second/third hand goods. We only really bought a pram when we had baby no1 everything else was donated second or third hand and we will be passing on all of the equipment when we're done with it.

Perhaps those two facts about me are related in some way

I got a brand new sofa and three chairs for less than £500. This was to replace a 2nd hand one that had lasted me until it collapsed. I waited until I could afford it to get new.

IF I was destitute and had lost everything and was given £1,000 to replace stuff I could easily do it on £1k, OK it would be a lot of 2nd hand furniture and no luxuries but it can be done.

In fact in the past my stuff has been acquired like this. But then again I am not choosy.

I think that's the point, if you aren't poor or know that in the future you aren't always going to be, then perhaps it's easier not to feel bad about having to take other people's cast-offs that they no longer want.

On the other hand if you're stuck in poverty and you have all these people who want to moan about how "ungrateful" you are for not taking their unwanted stuff (I mean if it was that great wouldn't they be keeping it and using it?) then perhaps you wouldn't be so pleased at getting people's old junk.

And for all this outrage at this poor woman (who let's not forget lost all her possessions in a fire) nobody's said a peep about that civil servant, the head of the National Audit Office of all things who was spending ridiculous amounts of public money on lunch, dinner and travel. He didn't just leap on the gravy train, he apparently was driving it.

Three of his expensive dinners would have covered almost what this woman spent on her sofa and clothes and he had a lot more than three dinners.

I'm not poor either and am in fact sitting on a second-hand sofa right this second. I was just a bit exasperated that my point could be missed repeatedly by the same poster.

If I couldn't afford contents insurance, I'd be so bloody grateful for whatever anyone managed to find for me I'd be on my KNEES thanking my lucky stars.

Elizabeth - yes I too know of ways that the government wastes money. But that does not justify cheating the system.
This woman has been offered some sensible help and she has wasted it, because she considers herself too good to take second hand things.
Funny, I've been lots of stuff for my new baby and I'm utterly grateful. Yes it would be nice to buy it all new but despite our good incomes, DH and I appreciate the fact that by giving us secondhand stuff, our families have helped us save money to pay for other things that we will need for the baby and also to ensure all our bills are covered whilst I'm on maternity leave.
Contents insurance doesn't have cost that much, if you shop around and are sensible about the amount you insure. In fact many councils offer contents insurance which you pay along with your rent on a weekly basis.

If I only had £1000 to spend on replacing everything I would concentrate on essentials. I certainly wouldn't be shopping in Next for clothes and only getting clothes and a sofa and then expecting to be bailed out again.

Second hand beds plus brand new mattresses would be a high priority.

To act like a complete and utter snob while your children have no decent bed to sleep on is damned stupid. Let's just hope somebody has the balls to say it to her face.

Chances are, however, that if she is refused grant money she'll just get things on HP as it'll at least be new and appease her aspirations to bankruptcy*

Agnes

• I am feeling pee'd off and snarky today, this is a let out of such, but the chances are that even in calmer moments the thoughts would be the same.

Perhaps it would be cheaper all round if contents insurance was made compulsory in the same way as car insurance is in order to drive legally in many countries . I wonder how many people are effectively under-insured anyway? Just possessing contents insurance doesn't mean that's it's a magic wand to replace all lost/damaged goods if the risk amount is not calculated correctly.

She isn't cheating the system. She had a house fire FFS. She was entitled to it like any of us would have been if we'd been in her situation. She just spent it a bit unwisely. Bourne was cheating the system and now he's being put out to pasture.

You're lucky that you had people around you who gave you stuff, maybe this woman doesn't. Taking stuff from friends and family is a lot different from taking strangers' unwanted junk from the charity shop.

And if you read it carefully she's not a council tenant so she wouldn't be able to take them up on their contents insurance. God this holier than thou attitude is really annoying.

Elizabeth - sorry should have made that clearer - the feckless arseholes I was talking about in my previous post are the ones cheating the system. This woman is just being very unwise with the money. Yes I am aware of the fact she was in a house fire, but at the end of the day she should still have had insurance, and she still shouldn't have turned her nose up at the other furtniture items she was offered. She is renting so she may still be eligible for a council run insurance scheme, especially if she is a benefit claimant.
At the end of the day, we are responsible for our own actions in life the harsh lesson here is that we should learn to take some responsibility. Yes it was shit that her house was burnt down, but luckily she and her kids survived. Her house has been revamped by the landlord and the social services are trying to help her get back on her feet. But she still needs to make an effort to help herself and her kids. And if that means replacing essential items such as kitchen appliances and beds and other furniture second hand or through schemes such as freecycle then so be it.
Oh and btw my mum brought me and my brothers up single handed. She would be disgusted at this utter waste of money. She scrimped and saved and did without to ensure that me and my brothers never went without, despite being on benefits and having a small part time job which paid not very much. And in those days there weren't such things as community care grants.

Oh and yes I did read carefully. Clearly you didn't - as you failed to spot the fact that people went to great lengths to find decent secondhand furniture which someone had offered to deliuver for free to her, which she turned down without any consideration. Personally I would have snatched their hands off.
And I have often bought things from charity shops as well. All my maternity clothes have been bought secondhand from charity shops and eBay.

Message withdrawn

Elizabett, when you are poor you don't know that you always won't be. How on earth was I to know back then that we would be comfortable now. We had our old sofa for 5 years.

And how am I to know that it won't all go belly up tomorrow.

I have huge sympathies for anyone who has suffered such a devastating fire, but the point is that she should not be more picky than the rest of the population when it comes to emergency replacements.

Yes, I lived in a council house too and was the child of a single mum who also struggled to get by. Somehow that has made me more sympathetic to the plight of women in poverty rather than less particularly when they've just lost all their worldy possessions in a house fire. How devastating would that be? Maybe she was in shock when she went shopping. Have you thought of that. People do irrational things when they are in that state of mind.

I thought the Daily Mail was a no-no on these boards (and I don't agree with that either BTW) but some of the attitudes here could have come straight off their pages.

Perhaps my attitude comes from the fact that I see people who supposedly have less than me (or at least they tell me they do), having loads of stuff I can't afford like designer clothes, brand new furniture every few years so it doesn't go out of style, and all the latest mod cons.

Me and my Asda/Primark clothes, 2nd hand furniture and stuff that I make last til it falls apart is a world of difference.

I think Elizabeth has made some good points. Sometimes, when you are poor, you don't want charity i.e. other people's cast offs - it feels demeaning. I know that's not a practical approach but it's a very human one.

Luckily when I have been poor, I've been given stuff by family and friends, which is a lot less miserable, somehow. I'm fortunate, have never been in the situation this poor woman has to face but I'm not sure I'd be terribly good at being grateful for crumbs from the rich man's table.

"Sometimes, when you are poor, you don't want charity i.e. other people's cast offs - it feels demeaning"

But applying for a hand-out isn't demeaning??

I'm sorry, but when you have nothing, like in these circumstances, you have to make do.